Cupich: ‘Counterproductive’ to deny Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians

The Chicago cardinal agrees that the abortion legislation is a hellish thing — “it says that the unborn child has absolutely no claim on rights” — but is considerably less clear as to what he thinks of Communion, saying

. . . he thought it would be “counterproductive” to deny Holy Communion in his archdiocese to the legislators who championed the law.

“I think it would be counterproductive to impose sanctions, simply because they don’t change anybody’s minds, but it also takes away from the fact that an elected official has to deal with the judgment seat of God, not just the judgment seat of a bishop. I think that’s much more powerful,” Cupich told CNA.

“I have always approached the issue saying that the bishop’s primary responsibility is to teach, and I will continue to do that.”

Well teach what in this case? Not, apparently, what Bishop Paprocki of Springfield said:

He added that “to be clear and say ‘no, you can’t be promoting abortion legislation and be a Catholic in good standing,’ it also protects the integrity of the sacraments, saying that receiving Holy Communion is a very sacred thing to do.”

Cupich talks as if he were a prominent lecturer with points to make, Paprocki as if he has a cause to promote that goes far beyond persuading people, namely to protecting “the integrity of the sacraments,” whose reality hovers over the whole controversy.

via Cupich: ‘Counterproductive’ to deny Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians | Catholic Herald

RORATE CÆLI: The Spectator: “Is the Pope a Catholic? . . .

via RORATE CÆLI: The Spectator: “. . . You have to wonder.”

. . .  In the old days, a pope’s remit was modest: infallible, but only in the vanishingly rare cases when he pronounced on matters of faith and morals concerning the whole Church.

But even at their most bombastic and badly behaved, earlier popes would have hesitated to do what nice Pope Francis has done, which is to approve changes in the liturgy which amount to rewriting the Lord’s Prayer.


That bit that says ‘Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil’ is, for Pope Francis, a bad translation. ‘It speaks of a God who induces temptation,’ he told Italian TV. ‘I am the one who falls. It’s not him pushing me into temptation to then see how I have fallen. A father doesn’t do that; A father helps you to get up immediately.’

Homespun wisdom. Stuff you might hear at the 19th hole, quaffing a cold one. But

. . . [it] sounds as if it’s not the translation he doesn’t like, it’s the sentiment — Christ not being Christian enough. And so, he’s approved changes by the Italian bishops to the Italian translation of the Roman Missal.

The original Latin Vulgate version reads: ‘et ne nos inducas in tentationem’ which is pretty well exactly the same as the familiar English one. The Italian translation, ‘e non ci indurre in tentazione’, is now being replaced with ‘e non abbandonarci alla tentazione’, or ‘and do not abandon us to temptation’.

That’s nice. But, but but . . .

. . .  the Lord’s Prayer is common to Christians of all denominations. It’s part of our languages and our culture. We say it at weddings, funerals [find it in movie titles]; the unreligious remember it from school. It’s a common prayer which binds us together. Why change the words? Especially since, as Greek scholars will tell you that the root verb, eisphero means bring or carry in, and hence, lead; nothing about ‘allow’.

Well, too bad for the (original) Greek, apparently. Henry VIII had the same idea. The two “don’t have much in common but they did see eye to eye on this. Henry wanted ‘lead us not…’ to be translated as ‘Suffer us not to be led into temptation’, only to be seen off [resisted in the matter] by Archbishop Cranmer…”

Blog author differs in one point:

Actually, Francis and Henry share exactly the same kind of personality, and, except for the womanizing, Francis only differs from Henry in the great restraints posed by current mores on how to get rid of adversaries…

But he has destroyed orders (Franciscans of the Immaculate, and others), organized coups (Knights of Malta), changed teachings of immemorial Tradition (on marriage and adultery, and others), acting exactly as the “Renaissance Prince” he is, even though he loathes the title…

Well said.



Sri Lankan cardinal carries the ball in Vatican and national matters . . .

via Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith on the Liturgy and its Abuses

Can’t say enough for this long, extended collection of commentary and critique by the one-time Vatican hand,

. . . a Sri Lankan . . .  ninth and current Archbishop of Colombo, serving since 2009. He was elevated to the cardinalate in 2010. He previously served as Secretary of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples (2001–2004), and Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (2005–2009).

. . . and no mean leader of his people in his native land:

. . . the Sri Lankan cardinal has been unusually blunt in the aftermath of the Easter bombings which hit two Catholic churches on the South Asian island, as well as an Evangelical church and three hotels.

Ranjith has complained about the government’s response to the attack, and closing the churches to Sunday worship drives the point home that he doesn’t think the security forces are up to the task of protecting the country’s Christian minority.

So he’s a plain speaker in re: both liturgy and political foot-dragging.